The fact that archewell didn't yet have its own url means that the Telegraph 'obtained' a look at its patent application and held H& M over the proverbial barrel for a scoop.
You can't patent a name. It is a trademark application, and the information publicly available is minimal, at best. There is nothing in the application that discloses that the trademark, when approved, will be owned by H&M. So anything The Telegraph would have printed would have been speculation, at best.
Gaining power is one thing. Staying there is another. Yet another is standing idly by while millions are murdered by the regime, an outcome that was outlined as a desirable result in the book which was widely disseminated but not at all widely criticised in Germany.
Proof, yet again, that you understand nothing of the nature of totalitarian systems.
I'm certain that 5 million Ukrainians stood idly by and allowed themselves to be starved to death (insert biga@@ eyeroll here). I'm certain over 20 million Chinese also stood back to allow themselves to be slaughtered by Mao's followers. Totalitarian states rarely come to power with mass support. They gain power in times of economic instability and seize power. Then they methodically destroy all state organs that can remove them. This has been written about widely by historians and political scientists. Perhaps you should go pick up a book?
Hitler earned the equivalent of $4.7m from sales of his book before he came to power. This is about 250 times the annual income of a teacher at the time. After coming to power, the book was given to newlyweds and later to every soldier heading to the front. It was circulated in libraries and was quoted and referenced in separate publications.
Then I must be a Leninist, as I have a library full of his works. Or a Trotskyite. Or a Marxist. Or what any of them would have called a "right wing reactionary", as I have works by Schmitt, Burke, and Sowell. But then again, I also have works by Churchill, Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Lord Conrad Black.
Of course a great orator (Hitler was a great orator) is going to have people reading his books. That doesn't mean they support his ideas.
I haven't said that the state should censor publications, by the way. I have pointed out the ridiculousness of your statements to the effect that people are capable of judging the merits of what they are reading. They demonstrably are not. And that is why the likes of the Daily Mail are dangerous and not an asset to society.
So basically, you are saying that people are too stupid to be entitled to a free press.